[cisco-voip] UC 9 Experiences / Oddities

Thu Feb 21 14:23:40 EST 2013

> Firstly I had installed CUCM 9.1 and CUC 9.0 in my lab which was fine and then went to install CUP 9.1.
> Tried to do the upgrade during install (both via local and SFTP) and CUP reports invalid upgrade file.[...]
Expected behavior, explored when 9.1(1) first came out and covered in the archives.

> 2nd,
> I changed my Enterprise URLs to be IP addresses instead of hostnames and it broke my EM and directory services.
> I had to regenerate the Tomcat certs and restart the service to fix the EM login service.

Most current phones don't even use the Enterprise URLs and these settings would have no correlation to the behavior of the EM or corporate directory services.  They are merely pointers that older phone models (or if you have external directories configured) use.  I don't doubt you had to regen certs to fix some things, but changing your Enterprise Params had nothing to do with that.

> 3rd,
> CUC 9.0[...]
Lost me at Unity, I'll let others comment :)

> 4th,
> CUCM v9.0 has case sensitive usernames for authentication (ie end user pages, presence, CTI).[...]
This is CSCub77825.  Fixed when you get back to 9.1.

-Ryan

On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Nate VanMaren <VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org> wrote:

Show me a screen capture of your MWI error please.

From: Dana Tong [mailto:Dana_Tong at bridgepoint.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:19 PM
To: Nate VanMaren; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net)
Subject: RE: UC 9 Experiences / Oddities

Thanks for your experiences.

Yes I always change to IP addressing for Intra-cluster comms so was surprised to see this error.

Regarding CUC 9.0 MWI not supporting E.164 numbers. I get the following errors when setting the MWI numbers:
Mwi On Code contains invalid characters.

Cheers
Dana

From: Nate VanMaren [mailto:VanMarenNP at ldschurch.org] 
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 2:12 PM
To: Dana Tong; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net)
Subject: RE: UC 9 Experiences / Oddities

1st I don’t play with CUP so I cannot speak to that.

2nd item, I always change to IP addresses, but I also always have CA signed certs that include the ip address as a SAN, but I haven’t seen any trouble.

3rd item, Unity Connection has supported E.164s for everything but primary extension since 8.6.1.  In 9.0 the added primary extension, I am running 9.0 CUC right now and I know MWIs with + still work.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/8x/release/notes/861cucrn.html#wp1137907

4th Item, I haven’t seen case sensitive usernames for a long long time, I know 9.0 and 9.1 using active directory LDAP the usernames are not case sensitive.

You may want to open a TAC case on these issues, because it’s stuff that should be working.

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dana Tong
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:29 PM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net (cisco-voip at puck.nether.net)
Subject: [cisco-voip] UC 9 Experiences / Oddities

Morning (evening) all, 

I was wondering what everyone thought of the new version 9 suite. What have the experiences been like?
Just some things I have noticed…

Firstly I had installed CUCM 9.1 and CUC 9.0 in my lab which was fine and then went to install CUP 9.1.
Tried to do the upgrade during install (both via local and SFTP) and CUP reports invalid upgrade file.
Installed CUP 9.0 and it would not integrate with CUCM because of a version mismatch.
I had to roll back my CUCM cluster to 9.0, integrate with CUP 9.0, then roll forward. After this CUP 9.1 installed ok.

2nd,
I changed my Enterprise URLs to be IP addresses instead of hostnames and it broke my EM and directory services.
I had to regenerate the Tomcat certs and restart the service to fix the EM login service.

3rd,
CUC 9.0 does not support E.164 MWI numbers. Does anyone know if 9.1 supports E.164 all over?
When using Calling Party Transformations, the numbers presented to CUC are the transformed number so I had to set alternate extensions for my users who have E.164 DNs.

4th,
CUCM v9.0 has case sensitive usernames for authentication (ie end user pages, presence, CTI).
Does anyone know if 9.1 is the same? Our internal system is AD integrated and for some reason the usernames have capitals and fails if I use all lowercase.
However on this LAB system which is not AD integrated it seems to ignore case in usernames (which I would prefer)

Cheers
Dana

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130221/c6f0349d/attachment.html>